The Instigator
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Astal3
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

British Monarchy: The United States should have the Queen as Head of State

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Astal3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,601 times Debate No: 58970
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (38)
Votes (3)

 

RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial

Pro

Rules:
Please be respectful and nice. Please do not be rude.
No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions.
You must agree that this will be a fair debate, using unfair advantages is not allowed.
No use of profanities or swear words.
No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs.
No threats or implications thereof.
No cheating.

My name is Emily Molloy, chairman of the Royalist Tea Party.
For this debate, there will be no acceptance round.

According to http://goo.gl... "Our modern Constitutional Monarchy gives us a Queen who is: an impartial symbolic Head of State above politics, commercial and factional interests a focus for national unity, national awards and honours and national institutions a Head of State whom we share with 16 other independent countries because she is their Queen too and that links us all together amazingly and most valuably the Head of the Commonwealth because all 53 countries recognise her as this and so she is a special unifying symbol for them too the centrepiece of colourful non-political ceremonial and national celebrations separate from the Head of Government (the Prime Minister), unlike in some countries where the two are combined, often with difficulty able to give impartial non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organisations, faiths, charities, artists, craftsmen etc a Head of State completely under the democratic control of Parliament but not having to change every few years in divisive elections at the head of a Royal Family who can share the duties and represent the Queen a constant, lasting symbolic head of the country with links back through our whole history and assured lines of continuity into the future a worldwide well-known and respected symbol of our country carrying out State Visits and goodwill tours in other countries."

Here in the United States we could really take advantage of these benefits. It has been reported on June 30, 2014, that "Americans have less confidence in the Obama administration than they did for George W. Bush’s at the same point in his presidency, according to a new Gallup survey." It has also been reported on April 29th, 2011 that "According to a recent CBS News/ New York Times poll, Queen Elizabeth II has a 61 percent favourable rating among Americans, with a mere 7 per cent holding an unfavourable view of the British monarch (a further 25 per cent are undecided). That compares with an average job approval rating this week of 45.5 percent for the US president according to RealClear Politics, with some recent polls placing him as low as 41 percent."

http://img.washingtonpost.com......; />

"Constitutional monarchies have an average GDP per capita of $29,106.71 and an average life expectancy of 75.6. All other countries have an average GDP per capita of $12,518.76 and an average life expectancy of 68.3. Point: constitutional monarchies. Of course, this doesn't demonstrate that having a constitutional monarchy makes countries richer, only that it's totally possible to both be a healthy, rich country and be a constitutional monarchy." - http://goo.gl...


http://img.washingtonpost.com......; />

"Only in constitutional monarchies -- where governments have much broader discretion to decide their fates than in republics —are early elections more common as a mode of discretionary cabinet termination than nonelectoral replacement," Schleiter and Morgan-Jones. In other words, only constitutional monarchies force prime ministers to consult the people before shaking up their governments." - http://goo.gl...

Sources:
According to the UN, seven of the top 10 countries in the world in terms of quality of life are constitutional monarchies. - http://goo.gl...
"Monarchy helps to sustain the democratic process by mixing a power other than democracy with democracy”. - a Quote from BBC.
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
"A constitutional monarchy is a form of government established under a constitutional system which acknowledges an hereditary or elected monarch as head of state). As in most republics, a constitutional monarchy's executive authority is vested in the head of state." - http://goo.gl...

Astal3

Con

Constitutional Monarchy
"a system in which the powers of a monarch are defined and limited by law."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Monarch
"a hereditary sovereign, as a king, queen, or emperor."
http://dictionary.reference.com...

President
"( often initial capital letter ) the highest executive officer of a modern republic, as the Chief Executive of the United States."
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Great Britain has a Constitutional Monarchy. The United States of America ( A very separate nation with different ideals and values) can be considered the following; Constitutional, Federal, Presidential, and Republic. The simple notion of putting a monarch anywhere in the U.S Government is impractical and illogical.

-Before I go into the impracticality of such a notion let me compare some economic stats between these two (separate) Countries.

UK
GDP-$2.387 trillion (2013 est.)
GDP Growth Rate-1.8% (2013 est.)
Unemployment-7.2% (2013 est.)
Poverty-16.2% (2011 est.)
https://www.cia.gov...

US
GDP-$16.72 trillion (2013 est.)
GDP Growth Rate-1.6% (2013 est.)
Unemployment-7.3% (2013 est.)
Poverty-15.1% (2010 est.)
https://www.cia.gov...

-By these stats I don't see the benefit of adopting any institution of the British government.We are also in control of the Federal Reserve which adds a substantial boost to our already massive economy. Also note in high regard this next statement.

"The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $49,800."
https://www.cia.gov...

- Though our government and economy has its flaws I think it's fair to say that we are doing just fine without British involvement. Not only do we have the biggest and most powerful economy on the planet but we are also at this current moment the top superpower. We have both an economic and military superiority compared to every other nation (Including the UK).

http://useconomy.about.com...
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com...
http://www.globalfirepower.com...

-When it comes to political fact and influence the US is far superior to the UK.

Now on to the more important point. Given the stats and fact of US superiority to the UK there wouldn't be any logical or beneficial reason to put in a foreign nation's government icon into our our government. Besides the fact that the Queen of England has no real Executive power (That power belongs to the prime minister) she has no representation of America on any level being that we have been an independent nation for over 200 years. The UK has a commonwealth while the US is based on capitalism. If necessary I will go into greater detail the workings of the constitution and how our Government works. I do my best to remain unbiased to a notion I feel to be submissive of what it means to be American, but the standing of both nations in the world and the very realistic power of both economies and countries suggests that america is superior. When it comes to the global picture my opponents arguments and stats are irrelevant and even misguiding. An example would be my opponents graph on GDP. While individual GDP may be better in a Constitutional Monarchy the chart doesn't show any specific nation for either institution, and the overall GDP of the US exceeds that of the UK by $14.333 trillion.

I thank my opponent for making this debate and I look forward to hearing more of their argument.
Debate Round No. 1
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial

Pro

Con is under the impression that we are debating if the United States should join the United Kingdom. This is not the case. All arguments are extended. This debate, as the tittle states:...."The United States should have the Queen as Head of State".

Currently the President of the United States is both Head of Government[1] and Head of State[2]. We believe that the American public would be better served if these positions were separate, with the latter being held by an un-elected, non-partisan monarch.

"The American people are increasingly waking up to the fact that nothing ever seems to change in Washington D.C. no matter which political party is in power. An all-time high 53 percent of all Americans believe that neither party "represents the American people". Over the past several decades, we have sent a Bush, a Clinton, another Bush and an Obama to the White House, but the policies coming out of Washington have remained pretty much the same the entire time. The mainstream media would have us believe that the Republicans and the Democrats are constantly fighting like cats and dogs, but the truth is that the Republicans want to take us to the same place that the Democrats want to take us - just a little more slowly perhaps. And behind the scenes, Republicans and Democrats have a good time with one another and they are ultimately controlled by the same set of oligarchs. The Americans people are really starting to recognize what a sham our system has become, and the numbers show that they are quite fed up with it."[3]

According to Simon Upton, New Zealand Environment Minister, March 1994, he says: "The public are sick and tired of politics, they are sick and tired of the machinations of elected office in a media age, and I think it’s quite good having a Head of State that’s completely to one side of that."

Stability is one of the biggest advantages. In Canada, they know who the Head of State will be probably for the next 60 to 80 years. The Head of State is above politics, so does not have to cater to one side or the other to get voted in. E.g., in the USA, the Republicans pretty much range from dislike to outright hatred of Obama, no matter what he does, good, bad, or otherwise. In Canada, the Queen is not "for" nor "against" any of the parties. It is also a lot cheaper[5]. While in Canada, they elect MP's[4]. There is also a huge "coolness" factor.[6] The Queen is someone they can all look up to, and take pride in.[7]

Sources:
[1] http://goo.gl...
[2] http://goo.gl...
[3] http://goo.gl...
[4] http://goo.gl...
[5] http://goo.gl...
[6] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl...
[7] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl...
Astal3

Con

Rebuttal
"Con is under the impression that we are debating if the United States should join the United Kingdom. This is not the case. All arguments are extended. This debate, as the tittle states:...."The United States should have the Queen as Head of State"."

-If pro is not arguing for the submission of American sovereignty then I am confused to what pro is arguing. Plus the title of this debate suggests otherwise. "British Monarchy: The United States should have [THE] Queen as Head of State"; THE queen not a queen. the only successful nation that has a queen still in the tabloids is the UK. Every other country with any kind of royalty are called dictatorships or some other authoritarian system. I don't know about anyone else but I would rather not go there. The United states is not a Constitutional Monarchy, you can't just throw a queen in there and expect everything to be ok that is ludicrous.

"A constitutional monarchy is a form of government established under a constitutional system which acknowledges an hereditary or elected monarch as head of state)."

- There is no such thing as a hereditary right to rule in the US. One of the reasons we revolted against Great Britain is to get away from that. Plus my opponent seems to ignore the fact that the queen HAS NO EXECUTIVE POWER. That power belongs to the prime minister. Even the UK learned the mistakes of having a monarch in power. Those types of ruler ships always lead to a totalitarian type of system.

Here is a definition of Totalitarian
"of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life."
http://dictionary.reference.com...

My opponent even ignores the parameters set in the very source they used and only provided a fraction of the whole story.
"A constitutional monarchy is a form of government established under a constitutional system which acknowledges an hereditary or elected monarch as head of state). As in most republics, a constitutional monarchy's executive authority is vested in the head of state."

"Today constitutional monarchy is almost always combined with representative democracy, and represents (as a theory of civics) a compromise between total trust in the electorate, and in well-bred and well-trained monarchs raised for the role from birth. [Though the king or queen may be regarded as the government's symbolic head], [it is the Prime Minister who actually governs the country.]"
http://www.fact-index.com...

-The US doesn't need a symbol, we have our own. It is called our flag. The American flag is arguably one of the most powerful symbols on the planet. We also have our own representative body, it's called the house and the Senate. Once again we are not the UK therefore it makes no sense to adopt a monarch unless we are merging with the UK. My opponent seems to base their arguments on grounds of desire rather than logic and practicality. The very notion of a Monarchy is an insult to America in not only what it stands for but the millions who have given their lives to make what America is today. If you want to live under the guise of a monarch then I would suggest you move to the UK; But since the Queen is simply a figurehead and holds the most influence on America through the tabloids it would be insane to place her or any queen as the head of state. Running the most powerful nation on the planet is not a soap opera or a tabloid story. There is a very legitimate reason the Queen holds no real power and to force that into the US government would not only cause dissension but possibly a civil war. If America goes down so does the rest of the planet as we are the largest economy. Why would you wreck millions of lives and the state of the planet for a symbol?
Debate Round No. 2
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial

Pro

"If pro is not arguing for the submission of American sovereignty then I am confused to what pro is arguing. Plus the title of this debate suggests otherwise. "British Monarchy: The United States should have [THE] Queen as Head of State"; THE queen not a queen. the only successful nation that has a queen still in the tabloids is the UK. Every other country with any kind of royalty are called dictatorships or some other authoritarian system. I don't know about anyone else but I would rather not go there. The United states is not a Constitutional Monarchy, you can't just throw a queen in there and expect everything to be ok that is ludicrous."

First of all, we are arguing that the Queen should be Head of State, not the United States joining the United Kingdom. Second of all, the United Kingdom is not the only country with a Queen, I have already proven that constitutional monarchies are more democratic than republics[1], but now let's analyse this: A quarter of the world’s countries are Constitutional Monarchies[2], and that is the better quarter by a long way. In every part of the world Constitutional Monarchy is better than any other system of government, especially Republics. Look at Europe. Britain has 3 and a half centuries of stable democracy. And look at the other long lasting, respectable democracies like the Netherlands and Norway and Sweden and Denmark and Belgium and Luxembourg and Spain (a fairly recent Constitutional Monarchy). Compare that with, say, Germany. Germany has only been a Republic for 90 years and has already had the single most evil, despotic, tyrannical military dictator the world has ever seen. Hitler became Head Of State aswell as being the leader of Parliament, and that made him an irremovable dictator, something that can’t happen in a Constitutional Monarchy. Look at the rest of the world too. What’s a better democracy, Japan or the People’s Republic Of China, under Hu Jintao, a one party communist regime? Jordan or the Republic of Iran under Mahmoud Ahmedinejad? Morrocco or any African Republic like Zimbabwe, under Mugabe? Thailand or the Republic of Vietnam? Canada, or any other North or South American country? In every single part of the world Constitutional Monarchy is better in terms of political stability and accountability. Also, every year the UN publishes a list of the best countries to live in the world based on the quality of life of the citizens. And every year, despite the fact that there are more Republics in the world, the top 20 are always mostly Constitutional Monarchies, and the top 10 are always mostly Constitutional Monarchies, and the top of the list is always a Constitutional Monarchy. Evidently having a permanent, apolitical Head Of State is a billion times better than having a politician as Head Of State.


"There is no such thing as a hereditary right to rule in the US. One of the reasons we revolted against Great Britain is to get away from that. Plus my opponent seems to ignore the fact that the queen HAS NO EXECUTIVE POWER. That power belongs to the prime minister. Even the UK learned the mistakes of having a monarch in power. Those types of ruler ships always lead to a totalitarian type of system."

You are right, there is no hereditary right to rule in the US, yet. But as for the King, King George III was not a tyrant. He was a constitutional monarch under the terms of the Act of Settlement of 1701 and had no authority to influence foreign policy. It was the intransigence of Lord North, prime minister, that led to war with the colonists. At that time, the American colonists were demanding a level of representation that did not exist in England. The English experience of a wider suffrage had collapsed into the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell and his military regime, Democracy as demanded by the rebels was unknown in Europe and Lord North couldn't imagine how such a governmental system would work. He wasn't alone, although there were a few English parliamentarians who were pressing for wider suffrage, and it came 50 years later. The idea of "We the people..." was as alien to most politicians at the time as we would view "We the rich and famous..." now. Quite simply, not a basis for good government in a fair and rational society (except in USA perhaps, where rich and famous seem to be the main criteria for election to high office since the time of Theodore Roosevelt). George III had very little interest in politics and no powers over fiscal or military policies. He believed his advisors because that's what the constitution demanded of him. He did ask Lord North if there wasn't perhaps a better way and was told that the American rebellion was the beginning of an anti-monarchist revolution. This was the 18th century equivalent of "weapons of mass destruction" and equally a cynical lie, but it stoked the fears of most people at the time and gave Lord North the mandate he required. All empires collapse because the burden of administration eventually becomes too great for the home country. This was the case with the empires of the Greeks, Romans, Vikings, Moghuls, Spanish and then British. There may be a moral case against empire, but the administrative case seems to be overwhelming. There is a lesson here, perhaps, for the USA as it grows its empire into other continents. There can be no doubt that the English and British colonies in North America, Africa, India and Australasia would eventually have become independent without bloodshed, if British governments had been prepared to sense the "real-politik" in time. But governments and politicians don't behave like that, do they? All the evidence is that George III was a kindly and cultured rennaisance gentleman. Everyone who met him liked him, even if they disagreed with the existence of the Hanoverian monarchy in England. His father George II had ridden into battle at Dettingen in 1743, but George III had no interest in war or politics. He wanted to be loved as the father of the nation and, by and large, that's how he was perceived. Even in the American colonies, blame for the military intervention didn't fall on King George until a new constitution needed to be written. George III was not mad. He suffered an inheritied metabolic disease of the liver, that resulted in a chemical imbalance in his brain. Periodically, he lost control of his thoughts and actions. The condition is treatable today with 100 per cent recovery but George is remembered by Americans as "mad King George" because it suits their actions in forming a republic. There were much better reasons to throw off the British yoke but the king's apparent madness was (is) easier to quote as explanation. It is interesting that the intellectually-reduced American philosophy of representative government, as later improved and developed by the Constitution writers, has been quoted and admired by other political thinkers including Marat, Robespierre and Danton, Napoleon Bonaparte, Proudhon, Engels, Marx, Trotsky and Hitler. All of these came to offer explanations and justifications for tyranny based on early colonial dissatisfactions, which makes you think. In all of this, George III was an irrelevance but a thoroughly nice and gentle human being, struggling with a serious illness, of which his advisors and critics took advantage.

"The US doesn't need a symbol, we have our own. It is called our flag. The American flag is arguably one of the most powerful symbols on the planet. We also have our own representative body, it's called the house and the Senate. Once again we are not the UK therefore it makes no sense to adopt a monarch unless we are merging with the UK. My opponent seems to base their arguments on grounds of desire rather than logic and practicality. The very notion of a Monarchy is an insult to America in not only what it stands for but the millions who have given their lives to make what America is today. If you want to live under the guise of a monarch then I would suggest you move to the UK; But since the Queen is simply a figurehead and holds the most influence on America through the tabloids it would be insane to place her or any queen as the head of state. Running the most powerful nation on the planet is not a soap opera or a tabloid story. There is a very legitimate reason the Queen holds no real power and to force that into the US government would not only cause dissension but possibly a civil war. If America goes down so does the rest of the planet as we are the largest economy. Why would you wreck millions of lives and the state of the planet for a symbol?"

Unfortunately, a flag is not going to prevent the failing superpower[3] from collapsing[4] due to political instability. The Monarchy is not an insult to America, as I have already proved that Americans love the Monarchy, and that the Queen is more popular than Obama. And I'm sure if the Founding Fathers were still alive today, they would see I'm right, and demand for it to be fixed. Please, do not insult me and suggest I should move to the UK. The Queen is more than a figurehead[5]. We are the Royalist Tea Party; a legally registered non-profit U.S. political party which aims to lawfully amend the Constitution to appoint the British constitutional monarchy to the United States of America. We have a lawful plan to realise the monarchy, and one that is not predicated on winning over a sleeping majority.

"If America goes down so does the rest of the planet as we are the largest economy."

01. There's not going to be a war, nor will the American economy go down during a government change. 02. Countries do not rely on America. 03. The 10 largest economies in the world is not just the United States: http://goo.gl...

Sources:
[1] http://goo.gl...
[2] http://goo.gl...
[3] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl...
[4] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl...
[5] http://goo.gl...
Additionally, you can read what the Queen's powers are on our website: http://goo.gl...

Astal3

Con

Here is the list of the hypothetical queens powers according to my opponents source

The following is a partial list of Queen Elizabeth"s Royal Prerogative Powers in Canada:
- The Queen alone, as Head of the Armed Forces, may declare war or peace
- The Queen alone may conclude treaties
- The Queen (as commander-in-chief) may choose and appoint officers of all ranks
- The Queen may convoke, adjourn, remove, and dissolve Parliament
- The Queen may appoint a Prime Minister of her own choosing
- The Queen may dismiss the Prime Minister and his Government
- The Queen can choose and appoint all judges, councillors, officers of state, etc.
- The Queen may initiate criminal proceedings, and she alone can bestow a pardon
- The Queen may refuse the Royal Assent
- The Queen may refuse to dissolve Parliament when requested by the Prime Minister
- The Queen can choose and appoint all Archbishops, Bishops, and ecclesiastical dignitaries
- The Queen may exercise the refusal of the "Queen"s Consent" (direct Monarchical assent is required for a bill affecting the prerogative, hereditary revenues or the personal property or interests of the Crown to be heard in Parliament).
- Since the Sovereign is "first in honour, dignity and in power"and the seat and fountain of all three," the Queen may bestow all public honours, including creating peerages or bestowing Orders of Chivalry
http://royalistpartyusa.tk...

Here is the Powers of the President
1. Chief of state
2. Chief Executive
3. Chief Diplomat
4. Commander-In-Chief
5. Chief Legislator
6. Chief of Party
7. Chief Guardian of the Economy
( A breakdown of each duty is in the link)
http://www.scholastic.com...

-Every role this Queen would hold is already covered by the President or congress, a queen is unnecessary and would essentially replace the President. Not only would she replace the president but "a Queen who is: an impartial symbolic Head of State above politics". No one in the US is above politics. The constitution is the supreme authority of the land not the president and not your queen. The only reason the President is subject to partisanship is because he is elected. A political party is a representation of American interests. There are hundreds of parties (yours included). The notion of this queen being in power indefinitely is preposterous and is against the very ethics and institutions of the American government. The reason we have term limits is to prevent the abuse of power. When someone is in executive office for life they will abuse that power. That is why the queen in any modern Constitutional Monarchy has no executive power. Our government is set up on a three tier system.

American Government
Executive- Enforces laws
Legislative- Makes laws
Judicial- Interprets laws

-This three tier system is called checks and balances which makes sure that no one or branch gets too much power. Your idea of a queen goes against that. Once again I state we are not a Constitutional Monarchy. Our government nor our constitution is designed for a queen. The only role of a queen is symbolism. The President is the equivalent in the United states. So in order to have your queen you would have to overthrow the current government=war, and change the Constitution=war. In the event of a civil war the economy would crumble and so would the worlds. Many countries do rely on America for both defense and economic prosperity (The World). What part of we have the largest economy is not clear? All the evidence to this very realistic truth is in the links of my argument in the opening round. My opponent has provided a vague chart and the majority of non Constitutional Monarchies actually score higher than Constitutional Monarchies(According to her chart).The EU is not stable in itself and has been on the verge of collapse many times. No government is perfect. Even your Constitutional Monarchy. Plus the queen in America is seen as a celebrity. There are many of those but that doesn't mean they should run our country. In many ways the President himself is a celebrity, he is the most powerful man on the planet. Pro has failed to provide any evidence to what steps would be needed to change the government without a war. Just putting the Queen as head of state won't work. That is not how it works. And to give the queen the power to stop the divisions in American politics you would have to give her absolute power which then it becomes a dictatorship. Otherwise you are going to have the same problems we are having now. It's not the government that is the problem it is the people.

" that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people"--The Gettysburg Address

A queen is not going to magically fix our problems or fix our problems at all. Our societal structure does not allow for a queen or king to exist. Trying to implement one would shatter every foundation in this country and you would bring it to the ground. Sorry but that's how the government works. So the notion is illogical and irrational.

Now on my opponents claim that a Constitutional Monarchy is better (which is an opinion which she holds)

-In the link is a list of every country and their government system. If you notice the majority of Constitutional monarchies are your poorest and smallest countries. The reason why the standard of living is better in the richer countries is simply because they are smaller. If you note that every superpower on earth is not a Constitutional monarchy.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

-Here is a list of the top ten countries by GDP per capita
http://www.whichcountry.co...

-Here is a list of the top ten countries by GDP
http://www.mapsofworld.com...

-The average life expectancy in the US for both Genders is 78.84. while my opponents is quoted "an average life expectancy of 75.6. [All other countries have an average GDP per capita of $12,518.76 and an average life expectancy of 68.3.] " Note that the end of the excerpt from my opponents argument is misleading by a little over a decade. So in terms of life expectancy the US is better.
http://www.data360.org...

-The GDP per capita in the US is $52,800 (2013 est.). Note that these numbers do conflict with another set I stated but both are from the same source and in either case the GDP well exceeds my opponents numbers as quoted ""Constitutional monarchies have an average GDP per capita of $29,106.71". Also note another misleading stat by my opponent "All other countries have an average GDP per capita of $12,518.76". So in terms of GDP per capita the US also well exceeds my opponents numbers.
https://www.cia.gov...

-Just to prove that i'm not cherry picking her argument here is the whole paragraph
"Constitutional monarchies have an average GDP per capita of $29,106.71 and an average life expectancy of 75.6. All other countries have an average GDP per capita of $12,518.76 and an average life expectancy of 68.3. Point: constitutional monarchies. Of course, this doesn't demonstrate that having a constitutional monarchy makes countries richer, only that it's totally possible to both be a healthy, rich country and be a constitutional monarchy." (This is right below her first graph in the opening round)

-May I also quote another excerpt
"According to Simon Upton, New Zealand Environment Minister, March 1994, he says: "The public are sick and tired of politics, they are sick and tired of the machinations of elected office in a media age, and I think it"s quite good having a Head of State that"s completely to one side of that."
-Not only was this said a decade ago (very different time), but since when has a leader of a tiny island nation had any valid opinion or expertise on a country well over 100 times his countries size?

-Also may I quote

"There is also a huge "coolness" factor.[6] The Queen is someone they can all look up to, and take pride in.[7]"

-Not only are my opponents stats vague and misleading but she also claims a reason the US should adopt a Monarchy is because "There is also a huge "coolness" factor.". Coolness factor? This statement is based on opinion and holds no validity as to why the US should adopt a Monarchy.

-The only valid argument my opponent makes is that a Constitutional monarchy is more democratic. That may be true but the US is not a true Democracy either. We are a Federal Democracy. Therefore the institutions of a Constitutional Monarchy are irrelevant.

- In conclusion my opponent has made False and misleading claims that a Constitutional Democracy on average is better than the US in both life expectancy and GDP per capita. She makes irrelevant statements about the levels of democracy in two very different types of government, and she argues because she thinks it's "cool" that we should adopt a Monarchy which is ludicrous.
Debate Round No. 3
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial

Pro

"Every role this Queen would hold is already covered by the President or congress, a queen is unnecessary and would essentially replace the President. Not only would she replace the president but "a Queen who is: an impartial symbolic Head of State above politics". No one in the US is above politics. The constitution is the supreme authority of the land not the president and not your queen. The only reason the President is subject to partisanship is because he is elected. A political party is a representation of American interests. There are hundreds of parties (yours included). The notion of this queen being in power indefinitely is preposterous and is against the very ethics and institutions of the American government. The reason we have term limits is to prevent the abuse of power. When someone is in executive office for life they will abuse that power. That is why the queen in any modern Constitutional Monarchy has no executive power. Our government is set up on a three tier system."

No, not every role the Queen holds is convered by the President or Congress. The Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (also Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, Queen of New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis) The Queen's mail role is to: "Perform the ceremonial and official duties of Head of State, including representing Britain to the rest of the world; Provide a focus for national identity and unity; Provide stability and continuity in times of change; Recognise achievement and excellence; Encourage public and voluntary service." [1] Who said we are wanting to replace the President? The Queen would simply be Head of State and the President would be Head of Government, but equivalent to a Prime Minster..... You said it yourself though, "No one in the US is above politics" and that's the problem. I have already proven that the two party system is corrupted and not working, the political parties no longer has the United States's interests and the American people are getting sick of politics, which I have already addressed and you seem to have dropped my points on that. "The reason we have term limits is to prevent the abuse of power." "There have traditionally not been any term limits in the United States Congress"[2]

"
This three tier system is called checks and balances which makes sure that no one or branch gets too much power. Your idea of a queen goes against that. Once again I state we are not a Constitutional Monarchy. Our government nor our constitution is designed for a queen. The only role of a queen is symbolism. The President is the equivalent in the United states. So in order to have your queen you would have to overthrow the current government=war, and change the Constitution=war. In the event of a civil war the economy would crumble and so would the worlds. Many countries do rely on America for both defense and economic prosperity (The World). What part of we have the largest economy is not clear? All the evidence to this very realistic truth is in the links of my argument in the opening round. My opponent has provided a vague chart and the majority of non Constitutional Monarchies actually score higher than Constitutional Monarchies(According to her chart).The EU is not stable in itself and has been on the verge of collapse many times. No government is perfect. Even your Constitutional Monarchy. Plus the queen in America is seen as a celebrity. There are many of those but that doesn't mean they should run our country. In many ways the President himself is a celebrity, he is the most powerful man on the planet. Pro has failed to provide any evidence to what steps would be needed to change the government without a war. Just putting the Queen as head of state won't work. That is not how it works. And to give the queen the power to stop the divisions in American politics you would have to give her absolute power which then it becomes a dictatorship. Otherwise you are going to have the same problems we are having now. It's not the government that is the problem it is the people."

The United States does not have checks and balnces, look at its Government Shutdown.[3] But speaking of the Government Shutdown, "Australia had a government shutdown once. In the end, the queen fired everyone in Parliament."[4] The only difference is that over there they got fired, over here they are still active and wasting taxpayers money. Here's proof of that: http://goo.gl... Again, the most stable nations are monarchies. Monarchy has an interest in keeping its subordinates healthy and productive where democracy is unstable and self destructive. Kings know they will last for lifetime so they feel the need to be magnanimous and benevolent. Temporary governors on the contrary accumulate as much as they can during their term knowing that is coming to an end. Changing government every five years prevents a nation from achieving anything. Monarchs, knowing that the country is a personal possession will always act with good judgment rather than wasting resources. In democracy by contrast, the government will grab as much as it can, without regard to the future. In contrast to a king, a president will want to maximize not total government wealth but current income even at the risk of decreasing the national principal value. As for our Constitution, the foremost aim of the Royalist Tea Party [RTP] is to petition the Commonwealth of Nations to accept the United States as a member state and to restore the succession of the British Monarchy to the United States through Constitutional Convention (per Article V of the United States Constitution). Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification. "The European Union is a politico-economic union of 28 member states that are primarily located in Europe. The EU operates through a system of supranational independent institutions and intergovernmental negotiated decisions by the member states."[5], the United Kingdom will be leaving this Union in 2015 when UKIP is elected. I don't see how this has anything to do with this debate though.

"A queen is not going to magically fix our problems or fix our problems at all. Our societal structure does not allow for a queen or king to exist. Trying to implement one would shatter every foundation in this country and you would bring it to the ground. Sorry but that's how the government works. So the notion is illogical and irrational."

No, the Queen will not magicially fix all our problems. Though I have already provided the benefits of us having the Queen as Head of State.

"The only valid argument my opponent makes is that a Constitutional monarchy is more democratic. That may be true but the US is not a true Democracy either. We are a Federal Democracy. Therefore the institutions of a Constitutional Monarchy are irrelevant."

No, we are a constitutional republic[6]. And our plans to become a Constitutional Monarchy is not irrelevant.

"Note that the end of the excerpt from my opponents argument is misleading by a little over a decade. Also, in terms of GDP per capita the US also well exceeds my opponents numbers. "

Not true. Look at Canada, Canada is a constitutional monarchy, and the United States is a constitutional republic. Canada has a life expectancy of 81.48 years, with a debt of $1.51 trillion, the United States has a life expectancy of 78.49 years, with a debt of $15.9 trillion. The United Kingdom has a life expectancy of 80.29 years, with a debt of $2.29 trillion. The United States has a life expectancy of 78.49 years, with a debt of $15.9 trillion. [7]

"In conclusion my opponent has made False and misleading claims that a Constitutional Democracy on average is better than the US in both life expectancy and GDP per capita. She makes irrelevant statements about the levels of democracy in two very different types of government, and she argues because she thinks it's "cool" that we should adopt a Monarchy which is ludicrous."

In conclusion, my opponent has made false and misleading claims that a Constitutional Monarchy on average is not better than the United States in both life expectancy and GDP. He thinks that levels of democracy in two very differeant types of government is not irrelevant to my case and thinks it doesn't matter if the American people thinks the Queen is "cool". When for a fact, recently reported, on Wednesday, July 2, 2014, that "Poll after poll has charted President Obama’s dipping approval rating in recent months, but Wednesday brought perhaps the cruelest cut to date: A new Quinnipiac University survey found that voters rate Mr. Obamaas the country's worst president since World War II"[8] Who else can we look up to? No one indeed. My opponent has dropped my points on the benefits, on the cost, and has said it himself "No one in the US is above politics" I have proved that having an apolitical head of state is better than having a politician as head of state. My opponent has also dropped my points on the United States failing, on the two-party system, and has failed to dispute my claims on the lack of lack of competence that we, Americans, have in politics. As a result, I urge a Pro vote.

01. American President (Leader of the crowned republic) [9]
02. House of Commons of the United States [10]
03. Parliament of the United States [11]
04. Her Majesty (Head of State) [12]

Sources:
[1] http://goo.gl...
[2] http://goo.gl...
[3] http://goo.gl...
[4] http://goo.gl...
[5] http://goo.gl...
[6] http://goo.gl...
[7] http://goo.gl...
[8] http://goo.gl...
[9] http://goo.gl...
[10] http://goo.gl...
[11] http://goo.gl...
[12] http://goo.gl...


Astal3

Con

I would like to start my closing round by noting that my opponent has broken multiple of her own rules.
1."You must agree that this will be a fair debate, using unfair advantages is not allowed.","No cheating."
-My opponent is using the comments section to try and persuade readers to take her side, this also allows her more time to speak. This is not only disrespectful; but is unfair and in fact "cheating". Therefore I urge the voters to hold her accountable for breaking her own rules.

Rebuttals
1."No, not every role the Queen holds is convered by the President or Congress. The Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (also Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, Queen of New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis) The Queen's mail role is to: "Perform the ceremonial and official duties of Head of State, including representing Britain to the rest of the world; Provide a focus for national identity and unity; Provide stability and continuity in times of change; Recognise achievement and excellence; Encourage public and voluntary service." [1] Who said we are wanting to replace the President? The Queen would simply be Head of State and the President would be Head of Government, but equivalent to a Prime Minster..... You said it yourself though, "No one in the US is above politics" and that's the problem. I have already proven that the two party system is corrupted and not working, the political parties no longer has the United States's interests and the American people are getting sick of politics, which I have already addressed and you seem to have dropped my points on that. "The reason we have term limits is to prevent the abuse of power." "There have traditionally not been any term limits in the United States Congress"[2] "

-Most if not everything in this paragraph is either plain wrong or biased. My opponent clearly has a very poor or non existent knowledge of American Government and how it works. Take this quote for example about the Queen's duties,"Perform the ceremonial and official duties of Head of State, including representing Britain to the rest of the world".

- In American Government the Head of state and the Presidency are the same thing. The President is the leader of the nation both symbolically and logistically. The Queen may be able to be the head of state in a Constitutional Monarchy but as I have repetitively said WE ARE NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. Putting the Queen as the head of state would BE PUTTING THE QUEEN AS THE PRESIDENT AND LEADER OF THE UNITED STATES. You can not separate something that can't be separated. This is where my opponents clear bias shows. She claims that there would be no civil war, well the technical definition of a civil war is an attempt to overthrow the government. Which in order to put the queen ( OF A FOREIGN NATION) as the head of state you would have to change the entire government as well as our constitution. You minus well just invade the US. She claims that the economy would be untouched. Every single war known to man has hurt the economy. She also claims that other nations do not depend on the US. She clearly does not understand economics and clearly ignores the fact that not only are we the largest and most powerful economy on the planet, but we also control the FEDERAL RESERVE. She continuously claims that the US government no longer works but has provided no evidence as to how nor how to fix it. I will provide a clear example of her ignorance below.

"The United States does not have checks and balances, look at its Government Shutdown".

-The government shutdown was a direct result of checks and balances, otherwise the Obama Administration would've just done what it wanted anyways. No the US government isn't at its prime but this isn't the first time nor the last. We may be losing our spot as the undisputed superpower but we are still at the moment the top one and will remain a superpower for a long time.

"Constitutional Convention (per Article V of the United States Constitution). Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification".

- Yes we can alter the constitution but practically the entire nation and government would have to agree to do it. Especially with the type of amendment you are proposing we would practically have to rewrite it. Good luck.

-As far as the misconceptions about my opponents data; She uses Canada as an example. Canada is one country and on what earth is it superior to America in any way? We have a bigger economy, a bigger country (Most of Canada is unsettled), and a higher population. I would know this because i've driven through a large part of Canada. Plus anyone can look it up. Most of Americas debt is to ourselves not other nations. It is a headache of a situation but that is irrelevant as we control the federal reserve, Canada does not. I have shown statistical up to date evidence that America is well above the averages of Constitutional Monarchies my opponent so conveniently provided. So my opponents claim that Constitutional Monarchies are richer and healthier is misleading and in most cases downright false.

-The only possible truth my opponent has said is a Constitutional Monarchy is more Democratic. That may be true but it doesn't prove that it would be better for America and that we should adopt a monarchy.

- My opponents lack of knowledge of American government and attempt at cherry picking the constitution is a direct insult to America and what she stands for. My opponent wrote the title of this debate as "British Monarchy: The United States should have the Queen as Head of State", but she continuously ignores what that statement truly means and the process it would take in the real world to make that happen. She provides stats from polls that have nothing to do about running a country but of peoples opinions and uses it as evidence to why America should let an institution of the British government run our country. Not only is this not proof but it is absurd. They are opinions, Americans have an opinion about everything trust me.

- I also would like to note that most if not all Constitutional Monarchies were once or still is a territory of the British Empire. We have not had any affiliation with the British Empire for over two centuries. Not to mention we have fought two wars against them. The Revolutionary war and the War of 1812. So to let an icon of the British government take the top executive office of our country is not only an insult to what it means to be an American but it is illogical. How is the queen of Britain an icon of America and a symbol of unity? Everything in our culture and history states the exact opposite.

-My opponents stats are vague and misleading, I have effectively debunked her evidence.
-My opponent has stated many times that because she thinks it would be cool and Obama isn't very popular (no really?) that we should adopt another nations leader to run our country which is absurd.
- My opponent clearly does not grasp how the American Government works and the Constitution as well as Global Economics and International political structure.
- My opponent has failed to uphold the BOP to "British Monarchy: "The United States should have the Queen as Head of State" besides the fact that she thinks it is cool. In the name of logic and evidence I urge everyone to vote Con.

Since my opponent has successfully insulted me and every other American I will simply say move to the UK and DON'T TREAD ON ME.
Debate Round No. 4
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
It's a shame 3 people have nothing better to do so they must ruin a good debate with their poor votes and false accusations. People really need to thoroughly vote.
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
I'm a girl, LogicalLunatic. But thank you for your comment, I feel the same way.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
I object to Royalist receiving zero points; I think he should've won sources.
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
I have talked to Playallin, she has adviced me to leave but I have decided to not leave. At the moment she says she will not continue with debate.org, but I on the other hand will. I have not plagiarized, I have not votebombed, I have not created any fake accounts. This account right here is the only account I signed up for, any other accounts are not from me. I will give this site a last chance and try to reach out to Airmax once again. I dismiss the recent slander that was aimed at me as false. Please disregard the previous link.
Posted by rings48 2 years ago
rings48
Astal3 the whole "Royalist Tea Party" is this one person who is convinced the Queen should be the head of state in the US. It makes no sense within our current government or constitution.

Many think it is in appropriate to argue with votes in the comments. You should lose conduct points for just that.
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
"Bad conduct by pro for fake account. Extra point for S&G for Con because of fake account. Arguments are flawed in that America is established as the land of the free. Failed to convince me on BoP. Sources are unreliable, shown by Astal3"

I do not have any fake accounts. My arguments are not flawed. And my sources were not unreliable. Stop slandering me.
Posted by Astal3 2 years ago
Astal3
Already have contacted him
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
Preston, stop slandering me.... If you have a problem contact the admin. I am not lying to anyone!
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
that's an alt account
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialAstal3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con vote. (1) Pro argued in the comments section {see comment #3 for example}, (2) Pro sent out a mass message asking for Pro votes, and (3) Con minorly insulted Pro in the last round. Thus, infractions weigh 2:1 against Pro. --- Grammar: No vote. While Con had a few errors, Pro also had some weird carroted image URLs. Thus, infractions weigh 1:1 against nobody. --- Arguments: --- (1) Popularity: No points. (a) I fail to see the distinction between this and an appeal to popularity. (b) Con pointed out that people don't hate the Queen because she isn't involved significanly in politics, making her a government-sponsored celebrity. --- (2) Economy: Con vote. (a) Pro's comparison of Constitutional Manarchies to all other nations is misleading because "all contries" are not "all other democracies", lumping very different governments together and making comparison impossible. (b) If the Queen asserts effectively no control over politics (which avoids totalitarianism) th
Vote Placed by daley 2 years ago
daley
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialAstal3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro listed Barbados as one of the countries over which the Queen of England is head. I live in Barbados and can tell you from experience that the Queen either has no say, or doesn't care to have a say in the legislation of law here, or the daily running of this country. Things are going to hell in Barbados; so your queen's rule hasn't been that good for us. Also, Pro replied to Con's stats on GDP with stats on debt and life expectancy. That was sidestepping the question. Con also failed to explain how the queen would change policy in the US when the president (demoted to prime minister) made decisions she disagreed with. How could she stop him without either taking on his role, or simply acting as another political party? Seems to me, her's would just be another opinion in the mix, lots to go around. Lastly, Pro argued that Americans admire the queen, but they also admire who they voted for, yet Pro isn't satisfied with who is now in charge. She won't be any different.
Vote Placed by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialAstal3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro broke their own rules and used the comment section to extend their argument past the time they were allotted. Pro's argument seemed to be "People like the Queen but don't like Obama" and "Monarchies are better". One of which is an opinion and doesn't explain how the figurehead of another government could come peacefully into power in America and how this wouldn't be America going into the UK. The other was refuted by Con showing that the US woudln't be improved by having a Constitutional Monarchy.